Morality...........

Isn't the entire basis of Christianity centered around a human sacrifice?

 

Definition of sacrifice = offering
Definition of offering = gift

Not seeing the distinction here.

 

That's not at all the point I was trying to make. The point was that throughout time, cultures have been much more violent than we are accustomed to and the morals were defined by the society.

Point: moral behavior is relative. There are no mala in se crimes.

Stoning a female to death for infidelity is moral and just in some cultures. We think it is barbaric. Our ethnocentrism states Christianity's morals are the best....thou shalt not kill. Yet, we routinely put men to death for crimes and send soldiers to kill other humans. Buddhists would never do such a thing.

 

In matters of opinion...there is no argument.

In reading others' opinions, sometimes...they make me think about things in a different way....and sometimes, from that, my opinion changes.

 

A good example here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/w...r-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

 

A good example of selective morality; and an example of what a tangled web morals becomes when the issue of self defense arises - whether that defense be of person or of nation.

I think very few folks on this forum would advocate murder, in general; but very few folks on this forum would hesitate to kill in order to protect themselves or their loved ones.

There are a few "set in stone" morality concepts that can be identified, I believe, across all cultures and situations; but they are very few. For the most part, relativism comes into play eventually, any time the subject of morality arises.

 

Sorry to jump in late to this conversation but I am a new member and was not able to comment on this thread until now.

I just finished reading all 11 pages of this thread and I think I can identify a problem that I don’t think anyone has touched on yet.

One of the biggest problems I see when Christians and Atheists or Agnostics debate this issue is the problem of imprecise language causing both sides to do a lot of talking past each other and never fully understanding why the other side doesn’t get it. As a point of clarification I would like to qualify what I mean as a Christian when I use the term morality. By morality, I mean Absolute, Objective, Invariant and Abstract Laws of Morality. I believe that it is because the Christian assumes this meaning and the unbeliever doesn’t that debates on this issue seem to go nowhere.

I posted this debate between a Christian and an Atheist in the thread on the Atheist Argument but I think it bears repeating in this thread for anyone interested in listening to or reading a good background on my argument. It is the Bahnsen vs Stein debate.

Audio:
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
Transcripts:
http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf


I also posted this article that does an excellent job as demonstrating the logical arguments against the definition of morality that I gave. It’s called “The Other Side: Metaphysics and Meaning” by Russell M. Manion. Here is a link to the article.



http://www.ucapologetics.com/other.htm



It is a very interesting read and should provide a good background to help both sides of the morality debate understand each other. It basically lays out all the arguments that Atheists or Agnostics have given for morality and demonstrates that whatever definition they use, morality is always reduced to something less than the Christian view of morality and therefore not an absolute moral necessity.

So basically the focus of this argument on morality needs to first have each side clearly define what they are referring to when they use the term morality. Is morality absolute or subjective to each individual or society at any given point in time, in other words, varies from person to person or culture to culture and a point that I think we can all agree, they are abstract laws, laws of thought and not something that you can put under a microscope and analyze with any of the senses. As a Christian, I take the side that if an absolute moral law giver does not exist, demanding that there are absolute moral laws does not make sense. Can lowercase morals exist, meaning that it’s something that causes a pain stimulus that you empathize with or is not conducive to society etc, etc, yes, but we as human beings don’t seem to want to reduce the definition of morality down to strictly scientific descriptions of moral concepts. And if absolute moral laws do not exist, what basis do you have to lodge a moral complain as if they do exist?

 

You know what they say about opinions...

 

A woman posted this on another site, but I think it fits this discussion:

I'm confused, is it still a sin to be on my period and be in the house? Should I camp outside during my menses? Also, I think I ate some shellfish, will I go to hell? I need guidance on how to determine which of the Old Testament abominations are still in effect and which ones were annulled by Jesus and therefore allowable as per my church Landover Baptist...

 

TwoCrows, the New Testament clears up this issue. The Old Testament even prophecies that God was going to make a New Covenant with His people even though it did not go into much detail of what would be different about it. When we come to the New Testament, we find that the New Covenant was the Covenant Christ made with His blood. As the New Testament authors unpack the differences, we find that the dietary laws that were put into place to keep Israel from inter-mingling with the pagan nations around them were to be lifted since their purpose had been fulfilled and in the New Covenant, God was expanding His program to include all nations. See Peter's vision in Acts 10, the recommendations of the Jerusalem council in Acts chapter 15 and Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians chapter 2.

All through Church history, Christian teachers that have studied what the New Testament has to say about this subject, thought it helpful to make distinctions between what is known as the moral law, found in the ten commandments, civil laws, dietary laws and ceremonial laws. Granted it can be difficult to determine in some cases but most laws are easily categorized into one of these groups. The other laws that the New Testament reveals was fulfilled in the person and work of Christ were the ceremonial laws so your question about regulating what women could do when menstruating to be ceremonially clean was fulfilled in Christ. The book of Hebrews goes into a lot of details of how Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of Old Testament law.

The Westminster Confession has a section that does a good job summarizing this New Testament teaching, here is that section.

Chapter XIX, "Of the Law of God," "I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience(5) . . . . . II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments(6) . . . . . III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, . . . partly of worship,(7) . . . and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.(8) All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.(9) IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.(10) V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;(11) and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it12) neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation."(13)

Now, in regard to civil laws, Christians have debated this all through history. I come from a school of thought called theonomy, since most Old Testament civil laws were applications of the moral law as it pertains to people interacting in society, most still should be followed. Now before anyone jumps on me for this statement, this assumes that a large majority of society is truly Christian and have a strong desire to follow God and His word. A society that is in rebellion to God neither wants to nor deserves to live in a godly society with righteous laws that are there for their protection and are therefore given over to be ruled over by tyrants instead. You can see my thread I posted on Theocracy for further clarification.

 

But in other parts of the new testament gospels Jesus says that all of the old testament laws are still in force.

 

yes TwoCrows, they were and in one sense still are, notice how Jesus also said that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it so when you read the rest of the New Testament, especially the book of Hebrews, you discover what Jesus meant when He fulfilled the law in His person and work. The ceremonial laws pointed to Christ and what He would do, once Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, the true holy of holies, those ceremonies went with Him. We now keep the ceremonial aspects of the law by accepting Christ and His work of which the Old Testament ceremonial laws only typified. To continue with the types and shadows of the Old Covenant is tatamount to rejecting the New Covenant that Jeremiah and the book of Hebrews talks about.

God put up with the rebellious Jews that rejected the New Covenant and Christ's sacrifice and continued going through the motions of the Old Testament sacraficial laws but in AD70 God sent the Roman general Titus to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple, destroying it so totally that he didn't leave one stone on another, just as Jesus predicted.

 

I'd probably go to hell if I ate shellfish but that is Because I am really allergic to it! Not that I am a bad person but with all the various religions saying unbelievers go to hell and because no one can be a member of more than 1 religion I figure we are all going there! I'll bring the mashmallows. If someone else brings the chocolate and graham crackers we can make smores.

 

Those "laws" are in the same section of the bible that is used by the religious right to condemn homosexuality.

So if homosexuality is still an abomination so is eating shell fish.

So if homosexuality is still an abomination so is letting your wife stay in the house while she is on her period.

 

TwoCrows, just saying the laws are in the same section is oversimplifying the question. Homosexuality is equivalent to adultry which is condemned in the ten commandments so it should not be classified as a law used to be ceremonially clean, this is why classifying laws is helpful when interpreting the Bible in light of the types of changes the New Covenant brought about.

 

How is homosexuality equivalent to adultery ?
Where is that stated?